Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to a property bearing CTS No. 229 and 267, admeasuring 1392.12 sq. meters, situated at Nehru Nagar Housing Board Colony, Kurla (E), Bombay, originally allotted to the defendant-society (Kedar Darshan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd) by MHADA. The plaintiff (Messrs Nooman Developers) claimed rights under a development agreement dated 7th July 1993 and a supplemental agreement dated 3rd December 1996, allegedly entered into with the society for redevelopment of the property. The plaintiff filed Suit No. 6889 of 2003 seeking specific performance of these agreements. The trial court, by order dated 4th February 2023, partly allowed Notice of Motion No. 1936 of 2022, restraining the defendants from creating third party rights or interfering with the plaintiff's rights under the agreements. The defendant-society appealed against this order. The High Court examined the factual background, noting that the plaintiff had earlier filed Suit No. 4262 of 2000 which was disposed of by consent terms dated 20th October 2000. The consent terms recorded that the society had agreed to develop the property through the plaintiff, but also contained clauses that arguably superseded the earlier agreements. The court found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case because the consent terms were a subsequent contract that replaced the earlier agreements, and the plaintiff did not seek to set aside those consent terms. The balance of convenience was in favor of the society, which was the owner of the property and had passed resolutions to develop it through another developer. The court also noted that the plaintiff's suit for specific performance was not maintainable without challenging the consent terms. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the Notice of Motion.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that for grant of interim injunction, the plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and irreparable loss. In this case, the plaintiff failed to show a prima facie case as the agreements relied upon were superseded by consent terms and the suit for specific performance was not maintainable without seeking cancellation of the consent terms. (Paras 10-15) B) Contract Law - Consent Terms - Supersession of Earlier Agreements - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 10 - The court held that consent terms filed in a previous suit operated as a contract between the parties and superseded the earlier development agreement and supplemental agreement. The plaintiff could not claim rights under the earlier agreements without challenging the consent terms. (Paras 16-20) C) Property Law - Development Rights - Co-operative Housing Society - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The court observed that the defendant-society, as owner of the property, had the right to develop it. The plaintiff's claim for specific performance of an agreement to develop was weak, especially when the society had passed resolutions to develop the property through another developer. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the appellant-society from creating third party rights or interfering with the plaintiff's rights under agreements that were allegedly superseded by subsequent consent terms.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 4th February 2023, and dismissed Notice of Motion No. 1936 of 2022. The court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant-society.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- specific performance
- consent terms
- development agreement
- interim injunction
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
